If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am in an argument with a family member about NN he thinks its the feds just wanting to enforce anti_trust regulations but I think its more of a way for the feds to get a toe in the door to control the internet. Does anyone have a source of info that bests discribes this situation?

I am in an argument with a family member about NN he thinks its the feds just wanting to enforce anti_trust regulations but I think its more of a way for the feds to get a toe in the door to control the internet. Does anyone have a source of info that bests discribes this situation?

I believe you are right. Left or right, there is nothing more informative than the internet. Control information and you control the masses.

Net neutrality was an issue raised by a myriad of private businesses who have had a growing (and valid) concern regarding the major providers of bandwidth and their moves towards becoming internet content providers. Its never been about government control.

Imagine if the highway system was privately owned. Think of all the gas stations and fast food chains off the exits. Well, now imagine the owners of the highway system want to get into the fast food and gas station business. So they build new exits that funnel traffic to their new gas station and fast food restaurants. Then they start to close down exits to those other businesses, or charge them exorbitant fees (in addition to the fees they already pay) in order to continue the same level of service they had before. Don't pay the extortion fees? Shut the exit down, and all the customers are funneled to their own stores.

That is roughly analogous to what content providers on the internet fear. That is what net neutrality is meant to address. It would ideally prevent those highway owners from unfairly diverting traffic, or charging unfair "extortion" fees.

Net neutrality doesn't really give the government any sort of control over the net.

They have already taken down several torrent sites and forced others to move to domains outside the US. wont take long for them to adjust to get rid of any kind of website they want.

Also remember that the Congress that just left was one of the Oldest in US history and many of them don't know the ass end of a mouse from a laptop. Fucking morons

That's not a net neutrality bill... that's copyright legislation... I'm sure lobbied for (and perhaps even written by) those wonderful organizations, the RIAA and MPAA. They're all about draconian net censorship, at any cost to us or our freedoms, in order to stop you from downloading movies and mp3's for free. We have much more to fear here, than we do from net neutrality.

If Wilbur agrees with it and a democrat administration wants it, it's bad for America.
Nuff said.

Quite frankly, it surprises me that conservative politicians don't really support net neutrality.. seeing as how they tend to think free markets are a good thing. They certainly pay lip service to that principle... but I suppose that's what it really is... lip service.